* Accidental Senator Bennet incapable of making his own decisions

DENVER - Senator Michael Bennet sought permission from liberal New York Senator Charles Schumer to vote for a concealed weapons amendment according to today's Washington Post.

"Colorado's accidental senator just can't seem to take a clear position on anything until he's forced to actually vote in the Senate," said Colorado Republican State Chairman Dick Wadhams.  "But having a Colorado senator crawl up to a New York senator and seek permission on how to vote is breathtaking even by Bennet's standards."

The Washington Post reported today that moments before casting his vote yesterday on an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would make concealed weapons permits valid in other states with similar laws, Colorado's two senators, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall consulted with liberal New York Senator Charles Schumer on the floor of the Senate:

"Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Colorado's Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, were said to have been willing to vote 'no' if necessary.  Twenty minutes after the voting began, Bennet and Udall left the cloakroom together and walked into the chamber.  Bennet went to the well to consult with Schumer, who indicated that it was safe for Bennet -- a product of D.C.'s St. Albans School -- to vote with the NRA.  Bennet looked to Udall, who gave an approving nod, and cast his 'aye' vote."  ‑‑Washington Post, July 23, 2009

"This is pathetic," Wadhams said.  "It's bad enough that the accidental senator is incapable of taking positions on critical issues like government controlled health care and job killing cap and trade legislation, now it appears he has to seek permission from a liberal New York senator before casting a vote."

"The accidental senator must not have learned how to make tough decisions on his own when he was attending the exclusive St. Albans School in his hometown of Washington, D.C."

Governor Bill Ritter appointed Bennet to the Senate after publicly rejecting and humiliating Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, both of whom sought the appointment.

**The preceding was originally published by the Colorado Republican Party.

WASHINGTON, DC - Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D‑NJ) today issued the following statement on the Senate's historic defeat of a dangerous amendment that would violate states' rights and wipe out common‑sense gun restrictions in dozens of states:

"Common sense and the safety of our communities scored a major victory over the special interest gun lobby today.  This amendment would have increased gun trafficking and endangered our communities -- that's why we fought so hard to defeat it.  Make no mistake -- the gun lobby is still a powerful influence in Washington -- but we will continue to stand up to protect our neighborhoods from the scourge of gun violence.

Senate Democrats today defeated an amendment cosponsored by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn that would help in reducing crime by providing reciprocity for the carrying of concealed firearms. This amendment to the Defense Authorization bill (S. 1390), offered by Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, would have allowed individuals to carry lawfully concealed firearms across state lines, while at the same time respecting the laws of the host state. Sen. Cornyn issued the following statement:

"Today Senate Democrats confirmed they are aligned with President Obama's intention to hinder, not defend, our Second Amendment rights. They defeated an amendment I cosponsored that would allow law‑abiding Texans with Concealed Handgun Licenses to protect themselves while traveling to other states. I'm disappointed with this move and certainly hope it is not a sign of things to come. The Second Amendment guarantees law‑abiding citizens the fundamental right to bear arms, and Congress should be working to defend, not weaken, these constitutional rights."

Background:

* More than 300,000 Texans have been trained and issued a Concealed Handgun License.

* Under this amendment, citizens with a valid permit in one state would be allowed to travel through another that honors Concealed Firearms Permits.

Sen. Cornyn serves on the Finance, Judiciary and Budget Committees.  He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee's Immigration, Refugees and Border Security subcommittee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

Washington, D.C. - Senator Dianne Feinstein (D‑Calif.) today applauded the defeat of an amendment to the defense authorization bill, which, if passed, would have undermined California's rigorous state standards that regulate who may carry a concealed weapon.

The Concealed Carry Permitting Amendment (#1618), offered by Senator John Thune (R‑S.D.), would have effectively allowed the concealed carry laws of one state to nullify the restrictions on gun possession in other states. It would have forced California and other states to recognize concealed carry permits issued elsewhere -- including laws that are much more lenient.

The amendment failed by a vote of 58 to 39. The amendment needed 60 votes for passage.

"Today's vote was a great victory for public safety and the American people, but we must remain vigilant," Senator Feinstein said. "The gun lobby and its supporters in Congress will be back, looking for additional legislative vehicles by which to eviscerate our nation's common‑sense gun laws. We must continue to fight them and their ill‑conceived efforts at every turn. "

Following are Senator Feinstein's remarks:

"Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to amendment No. 1618 offered by Senator Thune. 

If passed, this amendment would require states like California to allow people with concealed weapon permits from other states to carry a concealed gun or guns -- even if they fail to meet California's stringent requirements for obtaining a permit. Over 4 million people hold concealed weapons permits in the United States, so this is no minor shift in policy. It in fact would be a sweeping change with deadly consequences.

I believe this is a grave threat to public safety, I do not believe it enhances public safety and I believe it completely undermines the rights of state governments to protect public safety.

This amendment essentially overturns the standards and regulations that many states have enacted to prevent concealed weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

So, this is not a philosophical debate. It is a matter of life and death.

My home state, California, sets a very high bar for those who wish to obtain a concealed weapons permit ‑ and it does not honor permits granted elsewhere.

In fact, only 40,000 permits have been granted in California and we have a population of 38.2 million people -- making it the nation's most populous state. Contrast this with Florida; a state of about half the size at 18 million people -- it has 580,000 permits. Georgia has 300,000 permits.

Let me repeat, California, the nation's most populous state has but 40,000 concealed carry permits.

California's strict rules ensure that felons, the mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses or are considered a threat to others, are disqualified.

Those who do meet these qualifications do not automatically receive a permit. Specifically, in order to obtain a concealed weapon permit in California, an applicant must:

* Undergo fingerprinting and pass a thorough federal background check;

* Complete a course of gun training;

* Be considered a person of "good moral character" by the local sheriff, and, just as importantly; 

* Demonstrate a good cause for needing a concealed weapons permit.

This gives state and local authorities the discretion to decide who should obtain a concealed weapon permit.  This amendment will force California to honor permits issued by all other states ‑ including those which allow minors, convicted criminals, and people with no firearms safety training to carry concealed weapons.

Only the time, place, and manner requirements of a state would remain intact under the Thune amendment. For example, if the state of South Carolina had a law making illegal to carry a weapon into an office building that was government‑owned, that law would still be valid for all out‑of‑state concealed carry permit holders.  However, this is a very narrow exception.

This isn't just bad policy ‑ it's extremely dangerous policy.

The Thune Amendment is designed to undermine the rights of states to determine their own rules and regulations for concealed weapons permits.

Here we have people who believe in states' rights, but when it comes to something they really want, they're willing to pounce on states' rights and destroy them.

California's standards, I admit, are tougher than most, but many other states routinely deny concealed weapon permits for various reasons that go beyond any time, place or manner restriction.

Thirty‑one states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining concealed carry permits. Thirty‑five states prohibit persons convicted of misdemeanors from carrying concealed weapons. Thirty‑one require completion of gun safety programs prior to issuance of permits. The Thune amendment obliterates all of these public safety standards.

It's important to note that 12 states voluntarily honor concealed weapons permits carried in any other State. Another 25 states recognize permits issued by states with similar or equivalent concealed weapon permit standards.

But 11 states ‑ including California ‑ choose not to recognize any out of State permits. These states have made a choice about what is best for their citizens ‑ and that choice ought to be respected.

This amendment says that the views of California's Governor, sheriffs, police, and its citizens don't matter, but the views of those who promote guns do matter. I cannot accept that.

If this amendment were to pass, it would possibly allow those with concealed weapon permits to bring one or more banned assault weapons into our state. We have consulted with the Congressional Research Service, and here's what they say about this:

"The amendment would appear to have a preemptive effect on state reciprocity laws or regulations because it would appear to require those states which have more stringent eligibility requirements for concealed carry to recognize the permits of other states where the eligibility requirements are less stringent."

"It could be argued that the language of this amendment is broad enough such that it would allow certain firearms that are banned from purchase or possession in one state to be brought into that state. For example, one could legally purchase, possess, and carry a concealed permit for a firearm that is banned in states like California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York."

That's not my statement. That's the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. This amendment would put in jeopardy states' assault weapons control legislation. I don't know whether that was intended or not, but this is a very broad and vague piece of legislation that is being debated.

If this amendment is agreed to, I believe assault weapons will be brought into California and other border states. These weapons will then end up smuggled into Mexico.

Now some say, and we heard it here this morning that "an armed society is a polite society" and concealed weapons carriers are portrayed as responsible citizens who are simply exercising their rights. Earlier this morning on television, I heard a Senator say that only good, responsible people have these permits.

This is simply not true.

Let me give you an example. In April, Richard Poplawski killed three Pittsburgh police officers. Poplawski had the right to carry a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania even though he was subject to a restraining order filed by an ex‑girlfriend.

In March, Michael McLendon killed 11 people, including the wife of a deputy sheriff, before taking his own life following a gun battle with police in Alabama. He too, had a concealed weapons permit.

When I hear people on television say only good people get these permits; that is simply not true. In my view, these unstable men should never have been permitted to own any weapon for any reason.

Lastly, in February Frank Garcia killed four people in a shooting rampage in upstate New York. He held a concealed weapons permit in that state.

This year, too many people have been killed by those who have the right to carry a concealed firearm. We don't want other states' concealed weapons permittees in the state of California. We have 38 million people. It's a diverse, disparate population. More guns do not help.

I believe it unlikely that these men would have obtained concealed weapon permits in my state ‑ and candidly we want to keep it that way.

Mr. President, I would like to submit for the record a letter from the Governor of our state, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who opposes this amendment along with 400 United States mayors and the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

I believe this amendment is reckless. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it will lead to more weapons and more violence on the streets of our nation. 

Mr. President, I hope and pray that this body will turn down this very ill‑advised amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor."

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R‑Okla.) made the following comments after voting in support of an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that would allow individuals with concealed carry permits to lawfully carry concealed firearms across state lines as long as the laws of the host state are obeyed. The amendment, S.Amdt.1618 introduced by Senator John Thune (R‑SD), was defeated by a vote of 58 to 39.

"The deterrent effect on crime of the individual right to possess a firearm is greatly enhanced when we allow law‑abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons," said Inhofe.  "That is why forty‑eight states have adopted concealed carry permit laws. Unfortunately, there is no uniform system of reciprocity in America that allows gun owners to utilize their concealed carry permits in another state. Senator Thune's amendment would have done this, while still ensuring that the permit holders comply with the laws and restrictions of the state in which they are travelling. I was extremely disappointed that the Senate today fell just two votes short of furthering the right of individuals to protect themselves and their families."

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D‑CA) today spoke out against a proposal that would have taken away the right of states to determine their own concealed weapons laws.

Senator Boxer said, "California should not be forced to live with another state's weaker laws.  We need to do everything we can to protect our families, not pass a dangerous proposal that would only lead to more gun deaths and put more police officers in the line of fire."

Speaking on the Senate floor today, Boxer read from a letter from the California Police Chiefs Association, which strongly opposed the measure because it "threatens the safety of our police officers."

The amendment, offered by Senator John Thune (R‑SD), would allow people with permits from their home states to carry a concealed firearm into another state ‑‑ even though some states do not even require background checks before issuing such permits.

"California's conceal and carry requirements are carefully crafted, and the state does not recognize permits granted by any other state.  This amendment would have forced California to do so,"  said Senator Boxer.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the mayors of more than 30 California cities also opposed the amendment.  The proposed amendment was defeated.

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller I applauded the Court for affirming what so many Americans already believe: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm.  The Heller decision reaffirmed and strengthened our Bill of Rights. 

Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country.  One does not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and citizens of Vermont are by and large trusted to conduct themselves responsibly and safely.  In my experience, Vermonters do just that.  Like many Vermonters, I grew up with firearms and have enormous respect and appreciation for the freedoms that the Second Amendment protects.  Like other protections in our Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is one that I cherish.   

As a prosecutor, I protected the rights of Vermonters to possess firearms.  As a Senator, I have carefully considered Federal efforts to regulate firearms, and always with an eye toward the burdens it may impose on the Second Amendment rights of law‑abiding American citizens. 

Justice Scalia's decision for the Supreme Court in Heller acknowledged that some reasonable regulation can and does coexist with the Second Amendment, just as it does for other rights in our Bill of Rights.  The States have traditionally played the strongest role in regulating firearms based on State and local concerns.  Most firearms regulation is decided within States as an issue of State police power.  This is how it should be. 

I feel strongly that the principles of federalism demand that the Federal Government minimize its intrusion into the policy judgments made by State and local officials, citizens and state legislators, especially in matters of public safety.  I believe this is true whether the Federal Government seeks to restrict the activities of Americans, or it seeks to second guess what State officials have decided is proper regulation.  Whenever the Federal Government imposes its will some citizens may be happy, but others will be disappointed.  This is particularly true when such Federal action involves matters of safety and police power at the State level. The Federal Government plays a role in regulating the importation of firearms and has in providing a framework for interstate commerce.

Senator Thune's amendment imposes the policy judgments of the Federal Government on the States.  Just as I would vigorously oppose any Federal effort to restrict the ability of a State to allow its citizens to carry firearms in a concealed manner, I oppose this effort to second‑guess the judgments of State and local officials across the country in relation to permitting people to carry a concealed firearm. Just as I would resist Federal legislation that prohibited States from entering reciprocity agreements with each other to honor one another's concealed carry permits, I do not believe the Federal Government ought to be forcing States to treat citizens from other States differently than it treats its own on this public safety matter.   The Thune amendment represents the Federal Government intruding into the gun laws of the States.  It could even result in some States repealing their concealed carry laws to avoid the impact of the Federal law.  

What works in Vermont does not necessarily work in New York City.  And what works in New York City would not get a warm welcome in Vermont.  That is the beauty of our Federal system.  When it comes to public safety and police power, the Federal Government ought to respect the judgments of the States, their citizens, elected officials, and law enforcement agencies.

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

Washington, D.C. ‑ Senator John Thune today issued the following statement after his bipartisan amendment that would allow individuals to lawfully carry concealed firearms across state lines so long as the laws of the host state are obeyed was defeated by a vote of 58 to 39:

"Today, overheated rhetoric and fearmongering overcame common sense. My amendment would allow responsible firearms owners to protect themselves while obeying the firearms laws of the states they visit. The individual right to self‑defense should not end at the state line. Despite today's defeat, this amendment had bipartisan support and I hope the Senate will reconsider this important issue in the future."

Senator Thune's amendment would not change or nullify any existing state concealed weapons laws. Individuals traveling outside of the state where their permit is issued must comply with all laws of the host state, or face prosecution. Despite the support of a majority of the Senate, including 20 Democrats, the amendment required 60 votes for passage.

The Thune Amendment is cosponsored by Senators John Barrasso (R‑WY), Max Baucus (D‑MT), Mark Begich (D‑AK), Robert Bennett (R‑UT), Sam Brownback (R‑KS), Jim Bunning (R‑KY), Richard Burr (R‑NC), Saxby Chambliss (R‑GA), Tom Coburn (R‑OK), Thad Cochran (R‑MS), John Cornyn (R‑TX), Mike Crapo (R‑ID), Jim DeMint (R‑SC), John Ensign (R‑NV), Mike Enzi (R‑WY), Lindsay Graham (R‑SC), Chuck Grassley (R‑IA), Judd Gregg (R‑NH), Orrin Hatch (R‑UT), James Inhofe (R‑OK), Johnny Isakson (R‑GA),Mike Johanns (R‑NE), John McCain (R‑AZ), Jim Risch (R‑ID), Pat Roberts (R‑KS), Jon Tester (D‑MT), David Vitter (R‑LA), and Roger Wicker (R‑MS).

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R‑Miss., today voted to ensure Second Amendment freedoms by supporting the Thune amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.  The legislation would allow residents in states like Mississippi with concealed‑carry permits the ability to carry his or her concealed firearm in another state that grants this right, so long as the non‑resident state's concealed‑carry law is followed.  The vote was 58‑39 in favor of the amendment, which was two votes short of the 60 needed for approval. 

"Today the Senate failed to stand up for a fundamental American freedom," Sen. Wicker said.  "This is a common‑sense approach that would have allowed law‑abiding individuals some level of reciprocity to conceal and carry their firearms.  It would have respected individual state firearms laws and would have enabled citizens -- especially truck drivers and other individuals who are frequently traveling between state lines -- the opportunity to protect themselves."   

Wicker said that only 28 states recognize concealed carry permits issued in Mississippi.  He said this amendment would allow responsible gun owners in Mississippi to carry their firearms in other states that have similar laws. 

"The rights of gun owners in Mississippi should not stop at the state line," Wicker said. 

Since concealed carry permits have been issued by the states, permit holders have demonstrated that they are overwhelmingly law‑abiding and responsible in the exercise of their rights.  Currently, private ownership of guns is at an all‑time high and the violent crime rates are at historical lows.  The conceal and carry permits have undeniably prevented thousands of crimes each year.

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

WASHINGTON - This afternoon, an amendment in the U.S. Senate that would have allowed a state's concealed weapons laws to trump stronger gun safety laws in other states was defeated when it fell short of the 60 votes needed to pass. U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D‑NJ) was a leading opponent of the Thune amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, and he released the following statement upon the amendment's defeat:

"We should dedicate this victory for gun safety to Jersey City police officer Marc DiNardo, who passed away yesterday from gunshots fired by a heavily‑armed suspect. Our brave law enforcement officers already have enough danger to deal with as they keep our families safe. Had this amendment passed, those officers would have another concern on their minds ‑‑ every time they stopped a car, they would have to worry even more about whether the person in the driver's seat is armed with a hidden weapon.

"This is one of those times when the defeat of legislation is actually a victory. For families who don't want to have to worry about who might be hiding a gun every time they take their kids to school, go to the supermarket or go to work, this is a big victory in the name of safety."

"In a country where the second leading cause of death for our youth is gun violence, this amendment would have been doubly dangerous. It would have benefitted criminals, not their victims, by making it easier for people hiding a gun to stroll into a school, a playground or a crowded stadium. And it would have trampled the rights of the people in our state to make our own safety laws, which are based on a different and unique experience from states where gun laws are lax. We don't expect this to be the last attempt to weaken gun safety laws where they are strong, but each and every time, we will stand up for the safety of our families."

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

"Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I believe it is reasonable and is not as draconian in its implications as many of my colleagues, whom I greatly respect in terms of their concerns, are anticipating.

"I would also say there has been a lot of misinformation on the Senate floor about this amendment, to the effect that it will allow felons, people who are mentally defective, and other dangerous individuals to carry weapons on the streets of American cities, and also to buy up hordes of guns and to transport them into places, as Senator Schumer mentioned, like New York City.

"My colleague from New York gave as an example, in his terms, a Crip or a Blood moving to Vermont, establishing residency, then bringing a permit down into New York and being able to carry a weapon with impunity. I think the reality of that particular situation is that the gang members already have their guns. They don't need this bill. In fact, this amendment has protections that would prevent those who engage in criminal activity such as gang members from taking advantage of this legislation. And the people who need this bill are the ones the gang members might be threatening.

"With respect to standards of conduct, aspects of criminality, and issues of mental health, it's important to note that there is a federal floor underneath this amendment that guarantees that certain standards will be met, regardless of varying state standards.

"If you read the amendment, it states that "a person who is not prohibited from Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who meets other conditions then may be granted reciprocity

"If you go into federal law, and I am going to read from 27 CFR Section 478, this is the current standard in terms of being able to possess a firearm or ammunition.

"Anyone who:

* Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year may not possess a firearm;

* Is a fugitive from justice;

* Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

* Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

* Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

* Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

* Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

* Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or anyone who

* Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm. In addition, a person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm."

"Those, Mr. President, are the federal guarantees, the floor under which this reciprocity legislation operates.

"Senator Lautenberg has said in his comments that passing this legislation is akin to allowing someone from another state to come into your state and follow their own speed limits. This is not true. The amendment specifically provides that anyone carrying a firearm into another state must follow the laws regarding firearm usage in that state.

"I quote from the amendment:

"In a state that allows residents of the State to obtain licences or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to thesame laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issues a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried."

"I would say, Mr. President, that the better analogy at work here is the driver's licensing process itself. States decide the conditions under which a license can be granted, but the nature of interstate travel allows licenses issued in another state to be recognized across the country, so long as the holders of those licenses obey the laws of the state in which they are driving.

"I also keep hearing that this amendment will increase the number of purchases of hand guns and other weapons. I'd like to clarify for this body as someone who holds a concealed carry permit. A permit to carry does not automatically allow anyone to purchase a firearm automatically. One still has to go through the entire background check as if you did not have a permit. Illegal firearms sales are a separate matter for this body to address, one that we clearly should be focusing on, but they fall outside the parameters of this amendment.

"Mr. President, the issue of gun usage in America understandably divides people, usually along the lines of those who believe any relaxation of gun laws will benefit criminal and violent activity, versus those who believe that gun laws need to be modified in order to allow law‑abiding people to defend themselves. I have a great deal of empathy for those who have been the victims of gun violence, and I have worked with citizens groups as well as our governor in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings to focus our approach. 

"We have made significant improvements in our laws since then, including working to modify privacy laws as they relate to mental health matters, which was the primary concern in the Virginia Tech shooting and also to improve the instant background checks. I will continue to work in these areas.

"I also believe very strongly that the violence we see on our streets and in our neighborhoods must be addressed. But very little of that violence has ever been caused by those who seek permits to carry. As I mentioned before, the people who are perpetrating that kind of violence already have their guns. Their access to those guns is a matter we all should focus on. But few criminals are going to go down to the county courthouse and file for a permit. Those who seek permits to carry and who are within the federal guidelines specifically addressed in this bill seek to do so in order to protect themselves from the violence we see on our streets. I would say, when I look at this amendment, a couple of clear examples come to mind.

"One is my father, who in his later years lived in Florida and then Arkansas and would drive alone in his car to visit me and my brother who lived in Minnesota. It was usually at least a two day journey. My father was older, he was by himself in his car. He was a classic target of potential criminal activity. He carried a weapon, a firearm, when he traveled. When he stopped at night, went into a motel, he brought that weapon with him. You check into a motel, you're 77 years old, you're by yourself, people are going to start looking at you. I don't think that people who are in that situation need to wonder if they're committing a felony by having to defend themselves when they're in that situation.

"Something else that comes to mind are all of these truck drivers that we see on the roads any time we are on the interstate. These are independent contractors, they are making a living the hard way. They constantly cross state boundaries. They have to worry about whether their truck is going to break down, they have to wonder sometimes where they stop, whether they might be victimized if they sleep in the cabin of their truck. They can legally carry, many of them, in their own state. Do they have to worry if they cross into another state boundary and pull over for the night that if they're trying to defend themselves, they're committing a felony? This is the type of situation that I believe this legislation is attempting to address.

"I believe it will have a beneficial effect, I believe strongly that we need to work together in this body to address other situations of gun violence in this country. I am glad to add whatever insights I can have to this body in order to do so.

"I support this legislation and intend to vote for it. I yield the floor."

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

Mr. LEVIN: Mr. President, under current law each state adopts and enforces their own eligibility standards for who is qualified to obtain a concealed carry permit. Carrying a concealed weapon is a crime if those eligibility standards are violated and a citizen of that state carries a concealed weapon. For example, 35 states prohibit those with criminal misdemeanor convictions from obtaining a concealed carry permit.

The Thune Amendment would federally authorize an individual who has been issued a concealed carry permit in one state, the right to carry a concealed weapon in 47 other states, even though those other states prohibit an individual who resides in those other 47 states from carrying a concealed weapon. A federal standard is thereby imposed on the states.

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

The 35 states that prohibit criminal misdemeanants from carrying concealed weapons are told under the Thune Amendment, "you can enforce your own laws regarding your own residents but cannot enforce your own laws against residents of the 13 states who issue concealed carry permits to convicted criminal misdemeanants when those non‑residents visit your state." The laws of those 35 states cannot be applied to all persons in their states -- those from 13 other states who get permits under weaker laws are immunized.

A double standard would be adopted and would be imposed on the states. A terrible precedent of a national standard would also be adopted and imposed on the states, superseding a state's ability should they choose to regulate concealed possession of a firearm in their states by visiting criminal misdemeanants who do not meet their standards for concealed firearms possession. So while the Thune amendment says it doesn't preempt any provision of state law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, that is true only as to residents -- it does preempt the right of the states to apply its laws as to who can carry a concealed weapon to all persons in the state, residents and non‑residents alike. Senator Thune's statement that everyone "must comply with restrictions of states they are in," is not accurate then as to the key restriction relating to who can carry concealed weapons.

The amendment will also create serious problems for law enforcement. Law enforcement officials use concealed carry permits as an important tool in combating illegal trafficking. In most states, carrying a firearm without a permit is a crime. The Thune Amendment would hamper law enforcement's ability to identify and arrest illegal traffickers before they are able to sell their weapons on the black market for instance. This is one reason why the amendment is opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Associations, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and State Legislatures Against Illegal Guns.

The National Defense Authorization Act is enacted every year to help make this a safer nation. This amendment will not do that. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand issued the following statement urging her colleagues to oppose the concealed carry amendment introduced by Senator John Thune of South Dakota, which would undercut a state's ability to decide who can legally carry a concealed weapon:

"I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful measure and side in favor of law enforcement and state's rights.  I strongly believe that the gun laws that are right for New York are not necessarily right for South Dakota, and vice versa.

"It is wrong for the federal government to overrule a state's ability to enact reasonable, constitutional gun laws designed to prevent criminals and other violent and dangerous persons from carrying guns in city streets.  

"This legislation would move concealed carry permitting to a new national lowest common denominator. Incredibly, this bill would even allow individuals ineligible for a permit in their own state to shop around for lower standards in the many states that offer permits to out‑of‑state residents, undercutting laws that would otherwise render the applicant ineligible.

"I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me and stand up for the safety of our communities."

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

WASHINGTON, DC - Trying to prevent an increase of gun violence in America's communities, Senators Frank R. Lautenberg (D‑NJ), Robert Menendez (D‑NJ), Charles E. Schumer (D‑NY), Dianne Feinstein (D‑CA), Jack Reed (D‑RI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D‑RI) and Governor Jon Corzine (D‑NJ) today denounced a proposed amendment by Republican Senator John Thune (R‑ND) that would allow people, including some criminals and mentally ill individuals, to carry concealed weapons across state lines -- even if the state prohibits that person from carrying a gun.  The Thune amendment has the potential to increase gun violence in communities, put more police officers at risk and nullify state gun laws. 

"Trumping state laws to allow concealed weapons to be carried by almost anybody in any state is an egregious threat to communities across the country.  This amendment is another attempt by the gun lobby to put its radical agenda ahead of safety and security in our communities.  We are going to fight to make sure New Jersey and other states have the right to protect their residents with common‑sense laws and regulations," stated Sen. Lautenberg, one of the Senate's leading advocates in preventing gun violence.   

"Too many times, for too long we have seen blood in our streets from senseless, pointless, lethal gun violence. Our charge is to end that violence, not add to it. There are too many guns on the street as it is, but there are also too many people too willing to use them. Let's not make it easier for those who feel the need to conceal a weapon to carry it across state lines and into your neighborhood or my neighborhood," stated Sen. Menendez.

"To gut the ability of individual states to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most all parts of America. Whether you are pro‑gun or pro‑gun control, this measure deserves to be defeated. We will do everything we can to stop this poisonous amendment from being enacted," Schumer said.

"This amendment would obliterate all tough state standards that govern the right to carry a concealed weapon, and it would allow dangerous individuals to tote loaded weapons across state lines.  It would even allow a person who has been denied a concealed weapons permit in their own state to go to another state, get a permit, and return to their state of origin with the right to carry concealed weapons. Public safety will be jeopardized if  we allow the proliferation of loaded, concealed guns on our streets," stated Sen. Dianne Feinstein. 

"The Defense Authorization bill is about making our country safer and more secure.  The Thune amendment has the potential to do just the opposite: increase gun violence and make it easier for criminals to carry concealed weapons.  Police chiefs and sheriffs across the country oppose Senator Thune's amendment because it would undermine public safety and open up new loopholes for criminals to exploit," said Reed, a former Army Ranger.

"As a former Attorney General for Rhode Island, I'm deeply concerned that this amendment would undercut common‑sense standards enacted in many states, and would create a danger to the public as well as substantial difficulties for local law enforcement officials," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

"Throughout New Jersey as in other states across our nation, we have been fighting a war against violent crime.  More guns on our streets, especially in the hands of potential criminals, do not make us safer. We must remain vigilant in our efforts to reduce violence. This proposed federal law would effectively nullify years of hard work aimed at curbing firearm possession by individuals who pose a threat to our society," said Governor Jon S. Corzine.

Senator Thune's amendment would allow anyone who has a permit to carry concealed firearms in any one state to bring those concealed firearms into 47 other states, even if that person cannot legally possess a gun in the state they are entering.  The Thune amendment would not affect Wisconsin or Illinois because those states do not allow concealed carry under any circumstances.  Currently, each state has the ability to make its own decisions about what standards and rules should apply to concealed firearms:

* 12 states give law enforcement agencies discretion about whether to issue a permit to a particular applicant who may be dangerous. 

* 31 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining a concealed carry permit;

* 31 states require the completion of a gun safety program prior to issuing a permit; and

* 35 states prohibit persons convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes from carrying concealed firearms, including Pennsylvania, which bars carrying by those who have been convicted of impersonating a law enforcement officer.

The Thune amendment would nullify those standards and take away the rights of states to set their own standards for obtaining permits to carry concealed weapons. 

Consequently, the Thune amendment would have a dramatic effect on the nation's safety.  It would allow people to find the state with the lowest standards for gun purchases, get a license to carry concealed weapons there and then travel the country with loaded hidden guns.  It would help gun traffickers transport weapons across state lines.  It would also hamper law enforcement in many states by exposing police to a new population of concealed carry permit holders, despite the fact that local law enforcement know nothing about these individuals, had no role in issuing their permits and have no mechanism to verify their permits. 

From May 2007 to April 2009, individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns have committed 51 homicides, including the killings of 7 police officers.

**The preceding was originally published by the Congressional Record.

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (D‑Pa.) today issued the following statement regarding Senator John Thune's (R‑S.D.) amendment to the Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) that would provide for reciprocity of permits and licenses to carry a concealed firearm for individuals traveling across state lines.

"From my own experience growing up in Kansas and being District Attorney of Philadelphia, I know states need to prescribe their own rules for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. This is the essence of federalism. My vote against the Thune Amendment will not limit the constitutional rights of hunters and gun owners. Pennsylvania already recognizes concealed carry permits from 24 other states where their laws are similar."

**The preceding was originally published by the United States Senate.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has questioned Sonia Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, a troubling sign for the nominee in what has so far been a smooth confirmation hearing.

The NRA is considered one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington and holds sway with Democrats from conservative states, who could side with Republicans in opposing the nominee.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, blasted Sotomayor for ruling that the Second Amendment's protection of gun rights does not apply to state and local governments and for being "evasive" when asked about whether gun ownership is a fundamental right.

"As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans are watching to see if this nominee would lend her support to those who've declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners," LaPierra wrote in a statement posted on the group's website Wednesday. "After the first day of confirmation hearings, gun owners have good reason to worry."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, referred to the NRA's statement during Wednesday's question‑and‑answer session.

Sotomayor ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo (aka Maloney v. Rice) that the Second Amendment only applies to federal law. In U.S. v. Sanchez‑Villar, Sotomayor concluded that the right to possess a gun is not fundamental.

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn (R) repeatedly asked Sotomayor whether she believed citizens have a right to defend themselves, a line of inquiry the nominee dodged.

"I don't know if that legal question has ever been presented," Sotomayor said.

Coburn kept pressing: "I wasn't asking about the legal question, I'm asking about your personal opinion."

Sotomayor: "That is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me outside ..."

Coburn grew impatient, cutting her off: "I think that's what American people want to hear, Your Honor."

On Tuesday, Sotomayor declined to answer a question from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R‑Utah) challenging her ruling that gun ownership is not a fundamental right.

"[What] you wrote leaves the impression that unless the right to bear arms is considered fundamental, any gun restriction is necessarily permissible under the Second Amendment," Hatch said. "Is that what you believe?"

Sotomayor answered: "I'm not taking an opinion on that issue, because it's an open question."

The NRA raised concerns about Sotomayor before the hearing.

On July 7, Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, wrote a letter to Senate leaders raising concerns over Sotomayor.

"Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA has not announced an official position on Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. However, should her answers regarding the Second Amendment at the upcoming hearings be hostile or evasive, we will have no choice but to oppose her nomination to the Court," Cox warned.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor refused on Wednesday to elaborate on her views about firearms regulations and the Second Amendment, saying she would "make no prejudgments" about future firearms‑related cases.

President Obama's first nominee to the high court did say that she believed Americans do not currently enjoy a fundamental right to bear arms, which echoes her two previous rulings on the topic as an appeals court judge.

Existing Supreme Court decisions indicate the Second Amendment only limits "the actions the federal government could take with respect to the possession of firearms" and can't be used to strike down broad state laws, Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right from overreaching federal laws (and in federal enclaves like the District of Columbia). The case is called D.C. v. Heller.

But the justices chose not to rule on the broader question of whether the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms applies to state laws. Attorneys in two cases raising that question ‑‑ including an appeal of Sotomayor's January 2009 decision ‑‑ have petitioned for Supreme Court review in the last few weeks, and another petition is likely by the end of the summer.

Because Sotomayor has not clarified her position on gun rights, and has declined repeated invitations to do so during this week's Senate hearing, advocacy groups have turned to her written opinions and the president's own record on firearm regulation. (This parallels the abortion question: While Sotomayor parried those questions on Wednesday, the White House had previously reassured liberal groups that she would be a staunch pro‑choice vote on the court.)

The results were predictable. The Brady Campaign on Tuesday formally endorsed Sotomayor, saying her opinions show respect "for precedent and for the considered judgments of legislative bodies in protecting communities from gun violence."

And Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association's executive vice president, wrote after Tuesday's hearing that: "The Supreme Court is compelled to respect the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and to interpret and apply them correctly. The cases in which Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues have mishandled these issues raise serious questions about her fitness to serve on the highest Court in the land."

So far, the NRA has not formally opposed Sotomayor's nomination, even though past president Sandy Froman has called on NRA members to do so, and other gun rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation have.

If the NRA chooses to take that step, it could cost Sotomayor some Senate votes, especially from senators in more rural states. (One aspect of this week's hearing worth noting is that liberal Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold have taken pains to stress their support for gun rights.)

Then again, losing a few votes isn't the same as losing the nomination. The Sotomayor hearing continues on Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. ET with approximately 30 more witnesses, including ex‑NRA president Froman, gun rights advocate David Kopel, and Ilya Somin, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University who has written critically about firearm restrictions in the past.

****

Addendum: To avoid revealing her own beliefs, Judge Sotomayor has resorted to lectures that seem straight out of law school, at the cost of clarity. Read on for excerpts from her exchange on Wednesday with Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma who is also a medical doctor.

COBURN: Do I have a right to personal self‑defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self‑defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one.

SOTOMAYOR: Generally, as I understand, most criminal law statutes are passed by states. And I'm also trying to think if there's any federal law that includes a self‑defense provision or not. I just can't...

COBURN: But do you have an opinion, or can you give me your opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self‑defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I ‑‑ as I said, I don't know.

COBURN: I'm talking about your...

SOTOMAYOR: I don't know if that legal question has been ever presented.

COBURN: I wasn't asking about the legal question. I'm asking about your personal opinion.

SOTOMAYOR: But that is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me outside of...

COBURN: Well, I think that's what American people want to hear, Your Honor, is they want to know. Do they have a right to personal self‑defense?...

Those are the kind of things people would like for us to answer and would like to know, not how you would rule or what you're going to rule, but ‑‑ and specifically what you think about, but just yes or no. Do we have that right?

SOTOMAYOR: I know it's difficult to deal with someone as a ‑‑ like a judge who's so sort of ‑‑ whose thinking is so cornered by law.

COBURN: I know. It's hard.

SOTOMAYOR: Could I...

COBURN: Kind of like a doctor. I can't quit using doctor terms.

SOTOMAYOR: Exactly. That's exactly right, but let me try to address what you're saying in the context that I can, OK, which is what I have experience with, all right, which is New York criminal law, because I was a former prosecutor. And I'm talking in very broad terms.

But, under New York law, if you're being threatened with eminent death or very serious injury, you can use force to repel that, and that would be legal. The question that would come up, and does come up before juries and judges, is how eminent is the threat...

If I go home, get a gun, come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law because you would have alternative ways to defend...

COBURN: You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do.

SOTOMAYOR: I'd be in a lot of trouble then. But I couldn't do that under a definition of self‑defense. And so, that's what I was trying to explain in terms of why, in looking at this as a judge, I'm thinking about how that question comes up and how the answer can differ so radically, given the hypothetical facts before you.

COBURN: Yes. You know...

SOTOMAYOR: Or not the...

COBURN: The problem is is we think ‑‑ we doctors think like doctors. Hard to get out of the doctor skin. Judges thing like judges. Lawyers think like lawyers.

And what American people want to see is inside and what your gut says. And part of that's why we're having this hearing.

**The preceding was originally published by CBS News on July 16, 2009.